4 ms·
You're downvoted, but I think you were just pointing out the reverse causality in the parent post, right? I.e. even if our brains are Bayesian, it's not that "t
by virgilp 8y ago
You're downvoted, but I think you were just pointing out the reverse causality in the parent post, right? I.e. even if our brains are Bayesian, it's not that "they use a process discovered by them", it's just that they managed to decode what is the process that they were already using. Which doesn't seem ridiculous at all.
- User23 8y agoIt's not even a matter of causality, it's just a category error. Are there cranial phenomena that are analogous to Bayesian statistics? I don't see why not. But that doesn't mean that is how the brain operates. It's a matter of membership not isomorphism.